If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'd like to know if Statman would be ok with a native killer of a white person being acquitted by an all-native jury.

I don't know much about this, and I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms, but are we really saying we think a jury acquitted this guy out of solidarity with their fellow white man? That seems really far-fetched to me.

Originally Posted by Boxcar

Unfortunately, they really skimped out on the crickets on mine because they add a pretty flavourful crunch element on top of the coleslaw.

The Following User Says Thank You to BTS For This Useful Post:

I don't know much about this, and I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms, but are we really saying we think a jury acquitted this guy out of solidarity with their fellow white man? That seems really far-fetched to me.

That's not what I am saying. The acquittal verdict of an all white jury, non-representative of the community, of a white man who killed a native, leads to a question of a fair result. Perhaps a jury representative of the community reaches the same decision, we never will know this. In this case, with that jury, in that community, the question is particularly loud, as it should be.

That's not what I am saying. The acquittal verdict of an all white jury, non-representative of the community, of a white man who killed a native, leads to a question of a fair result. Perhaps a jury representative of the community reaches the same decision, we never will know this. In this case, with that jury, in that community, the question is particularly loud, as it should be.

Maybe people need to stop looking at skin colour as being a factor of being someone's peer.

That's not what I am saying. The acquittal verdict of an all white jury, non-representative of the community, of a white man who killed a native, leads to a question of a fair result. Perhaps a jury representative of the community reaches the same decision, we never will know this. In this case, with that jury, in that community, the question is particularly loud, as it should be.

Lol and there goes Jim, spouting off about something he doesn't understand again. Let me guess, you read a couple of headlines?

Originally Posted by gruber92

Of course he can, but it's safe to assume Biagini will match Stroman's numbers over the next three years easily.

I don't know much about this, and I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms, but are we really saying we think a jury acquitted this guy out of solidarity with their fellow white man? That seems really far-fetched to me.

That's not what I am saying. The acquittal verdict of an all white jury, non-representative of the community, of a white man who killed a native, leads to a question of a fair result. Perhaps a jury representative of the community reaches the same decision, we never will know this. In this case, with that jury, in that community, the question is particularly loud, as it should be.

Oh yeah, you're definitely not the bizarro version of Statman or anything.

Just amazing. I'll never understand how one gets so much vitriol while the other one posts his conspiracy theories, hyperbole and sometimes flat out lies with impunity. In case you're confused Jim, you're a race baiting idiot who seems wholly incapable of understanding how juries work. Us white people just love unjustly setting other white people free.

According to the prosecution, the group pulled into the farm after a flat tyre. The defence argued that they arrived with the intention of stealing an all-terrain vehicle.

No mention of how drunk they were, the farm they "visited" before arriving at Stanley's, or the loaded .22 they had sitting in the front seat. But, facts don't matter.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

After an altercation involving Stanley, his wife and son and Boushie, the farmer approached the vehicle and fired a pistol three times, the court heard. The last bullet struck Boushie in the head – an event Stanley later called a “freak accident”.

Funny how you can manipulate a story, without actually telling a lie. I guess that constitutes "journalism" today.

Yes Stanley fired shots. In the air. Gerald Stanley did not shoot at the van. Gerald Stanley could not recall if he had two rounds of three in the chamber. The third shot fired while Stanley was attempting to shut off the van, and the defence claims was the result of hang fire- a delay between pulling the trigger and firing, and there is evidence to support that claim. This is the freak accident they decided to put in quotations as if this was an outlandish claim with no evidence behind it.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Activists say that the not-guilty verdict owed much to the selection of an all-white jury, even though Saskatchewan has a large indigenous population.

I'm awaiting Jim's response to refute this point.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

A key element of Stanley’s defence was that there was a delay, known as “hang fire”, between his pulling of the trigger and the discharge of the weapon.

Ah there it is, the mention of hang fire. Buried at the bottom of the article.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Expert witnesses for both the prosecution and defence testified that the gun showed no indication of “hang fire” or any other malfunction.

No, but there was evidence from the ammunition that made the case for hang fire. Clear failure to report the facts in an attempt to mislead their audience.

No, Saskatchewan is not inherently racist as the media wants everyone to believe. A bunch of teens made poor choices, and one sadly ended up paying the ultimate price for all of them.

Originally Posted by gruber92

Of course he can, but it's safe to assume Biagini will match Stroman's numbers over the next three years easily.